Prem Narain ORDER
Dr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member)
1. This first appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 07.06.2016, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 488/2016, by which the complaint filed by the appellant against the rejection of his claim for the theft of insured vehicle on the ground that the ignition keys were left inside the vehicle, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant purchased a goods truck, bearing registration No. HR-55 Q-6002 for a total price of 21,09,795.62 on 31.05.2012, by taking loan from the HDFC Bank. The said vehicle was insured with the OP Insurance Company for the period 28.05.2012 to 27.05.2013 for an insured declared value (IDV) of 20 lakh. On the date of the incident, i.e., 09.07.2012, the driver of the complainant company, Manish Kumar, was taking the truck from Gokulpuri to Jhajjar, Haryana, when he parked the same at roadside at about 1:30 AM to attend the call of nature. While doing so, he saw a Mahindra Jeep stopping in front of the aforesaid truck, from which some unknown persons came out, boarded the truck and took it away. On the same day, an FIR No. 152/2012 was registered at PS Timarpur at 8:10 AM. As per the investigation done by the Police, the names of the persons responsible for the theft of the truck were revealed. It was stated, however, that the truck could not be recovered as the same had been sold by them. The untraced report given by the Police was filed in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. A claim under the insurance policy was filed with the OP Insurance Company, but the same was repudiated vide their letter dated 30.10.2015, stating that the keys of the vehicle were left in the ignition socket at the time of the incident and hence, the theft was facilitated due to negligence of the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question before the State Commission, seeking directions to the OPs to pay them the insured sum of 20 lakh alongwith interest @18% p.a. and compensation of 10 lakh for loss of business, 5 lakh for mental harassment and 1 lakh for cost of litigation.
3. The State Commission dismissed the complaint at the stage of admission itself, saying that law was well-settled that if the keys were left in the vehicle in such kind of incident, with ignition on, the insurance company was not liable to pay the claim. The State Commission placed reliance on an earlier order passed by this Commission in, " IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjay Bhagwar Malwade, [MANU/CF/0779/2015 : IV (2015) CPJ 188] ". Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainant/appellant is before this Commission by way of the present First Appeal.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant was heard in detail. Regarding the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal, the Ld. Counsel stated that the appellant was under a wrong impression that the period of limitation for filing the appeal was 90 days and not 30 days. Moreover, the father of the partner of the complainant firm, Mahavir Prasad Gupta, was seriously ill and hence, unable to attend office for 20 - 25 days.
5. The Ld. Counsel has further drawn attention to an order passed by this Commission in "New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Narayan Prasad Appaprasad Pathak" [MANU/CF/0048/2006 : II (2006) CPJ 144 NC], saying that in that case, the vehicle being driven was carrying more passengers than permitted. However, 75% of the claim on non-standard basis was allowed. The Ld. Counsel further stated that the version of the OP Insurance Company that the keys were left inside the ignition, was not valid and hence, the claim should have been allowed by the insurance company.
6. We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
7. The issue in question is no more res-integra in view of the recent orders passed by this Commission in " RP No. 2795/2008, "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tara Singh (deceased) through LRs decided on 28.09.2016" and another case in "RP No. 2398/2016, "Ajay Kamboj v. Divisional Manager, ICICI Lombard Zenith House & Anr. decided on 21.11.2016". It is a well-settled legal proposition that if the keys of the vehicles are left inside the ignition socket, it amounts to grave negligence on the part of the complainant. In the present case as well, the complainant has nowhere stated in the consumer complaint that the keys were taken away by the driver, when he went to attend the call of nature, after parking the vehicle on the roadside. A perusal of the copy of the FIR recorded by the Police reveals that the driver simply stated that he came out from his truck after parking the same on the roadside and started urinating. He saw some people coming in a Mahindra Jeep, who stopped in front of the truck, entered the same and took the vehicle away. In case, the keys were in possession of the driver, or he had locked the cabin before going to attend the call of nature, the culprits could not have just entered the vehicle and driven it away.
8. The repudiation letter issued by the Insurance Company says it clearly that the insured vehicle was left unattended with the keys inside the vehicle, by the driver, when the alleged theft occurred and hence, there was negligence on the part of the driver. In the letter addressed to the insurance company, the complainant stated that the driver Manish Kumar had locked the vehicle and gone to the wash-room. However, the said version of the complainant is not supported by any evidence on record. The complainant could have produced on record the affidavit of the driver to that effect. Moreover, it is generally seen that in every truck, besides the driver, there is another person called cleaner. In the instant case, it is not clear whether there was any more person accompanying the driver Manish Kumar. In any case, if the version of the complainant was true, the driver could have stated categorically that he had locked the vehicle and then went for urination. It is very clear form the facts of the case, therefore, that the complainant is not entitled to the claim under the Insurance Policy as there has been negligence on their part, in leaving the keys inside, while going away from the vehicle.
9. In so far as the delay in filing the appeal is concerned, the ignorance of law is no excuse. It is abundantly clear that a time of 30 days only is allowed for filing the appeals and time of 90 days is allowed for filing the revision petitions. The appellant has not been able to give any cogent reasons as to why there was delay in filing the said appeal.
10. Based on the discussion above, it is clear that the appeal is without any merit on ground of limitation as well as on merits. There is no irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission, therefore, and the same is upheld. The instant appeal is ordered to be dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.